This article with the ADL's perspective is definitely more ignorant than the joke, to the point of hilarity. It pretty much suggests that the pressures of filmmaking must be causing his life to fall apart in some kind downward spiral that is specifically anti-Semitic in nature.

It's so clear that he was just trying to make a very dark and provocative point (of questionable merit) about sympathising with evil, realised he was making a hash of it, then tried to diffuse it with a joke about how he knew his words would be spun ("Okay, fine, yes: I'm a Nazi - that's how you're all going to write it up anyway..."). If you haven't already, it's worth checking out the video for Dunst's hilarious awkward reactions alone. The question that kicks it off comes at 34:30.

While the mics are still running after the the conference has ended you hear Dunst saying "Oh, Lars... That was intense." To which he replies, "Oh, come ooon..." I concur.

How is this a response to KarlJan's linked review and what is it supposed to mean? How is Haneke's movie related to Von Trier's movie?

It's a response because I don't trust the "A" grade. And I think that Haneke has a little more going for him as a provacateur than Von Trier.

So, are you more concerned about which will be the better movie and receive a better grade, or what your personal experience will be while watching the movies? Like with Malick, I find curious the investments you make in other people's receptions and opinions, especially when expressed with surrogate authority. That's the mindset of studio bigwigs, isn't it? Relying on response cards. Are you excited about what people will say about the movie, or what you yourself will think and feel while watching the movie?

“If I had to hold up the most heavily fortified bank in America,” Bolaño says, “I’d take a gang of poets. The attempt would probably end in disaster, but it would be beautiful.”